In Harrisburg yesterday, a study of the struggling State System of Higher Education met with plenty of skepticism from the lawmakers who commissioned it.
During a joint hearing the Senate and House Education committees, the RAND Corporation’s Charles Goldman defended the study’s conclusions and the five proposals it came up with, two of which involved placing the State System under the control of Penn State, Pitt, or Temple universities. Some committee members, especially Senator John Eichelberger, who led the hearing, seemed more willing to consider the proposals, while others were dismissive.
Pointing out that the state gave $111 million more to the state-related schools than its state-owned schools last year, Senator Robert Tomlinson suggested the state is competing against itself. Senator Andrew Dinniman doubted the methodology of the report and therefore its conclusions. Representative Patty Kim wondered why the study didn’t propose more funding for the State System.
Taking a different tack, committee leader John Eichelberger said part of the blame for the State System’s problems was the protectionism of union jobs, questioning why employment at the state-owned schools has not dropped at the same rate as enrollment.
RAND Corporation’s Charles Goldman defended the methodology of the report, and said they did not recommend more state funding because more money from the state would not make a real impact on the issues facing the State System. “…we do think additional state funding would help the State System be more sustainable but given that state funding is still a minority of the total revenues…additional funding won’t change the long-term demographics.” As to Eichelberger’s comments on employment versus enrollment, Goldman said the proposals would help address the imbalance.
While no preferred course of action was settled upon, it was clear that all believed there’s no easy solution, and that placing the State System schools under the control of Penn State, Pitt, or Temple is not a solution.
